Case study · Real Estate

One property, described the same way in every document

A commercial real estate team running transaction due diligence on files assembled by agents, notaries and surveyors.

The client

Who they are.

A commercial real estate team running transaction due diligence. Every file it reviews was assembled by other people — agents, notaries, surveyors — none of whom owned the complete set.

Anonymised at the client’s request. Client names are never disclosed without written permission.

1,100transactions per year
9documents per file
3cross-document checks
The task

What had to be solved.

Comparing address, surface area and lot references across nine documents was manual. A surface discrepancy surfaced at closing, when renegotiation was expensive, and nobody could say afterwards who had checked what.

The goal

What success looked like.

  • Compare property identity across the whole file automatically
  • Find a surface or reference discrepancy before closing
  • Be able to show that the diligence was actually performed
The solution

What Ceertia does here.

A use case per transaction type, comparing address, surface area and lot references across title, lease, survey and certificates. Every divergence is flagged with all source zones cited, and the verification itself is stored.

A real rule One rule, as it runs.

The surface area must be consistent between the floor plan, the lease and the energy certificate.

The procedure

How it runs, step by step.

1
Intake

The file arrives with its documents, in any format, from whoever sends it.

Title documentsLease agreementsSurveys and floor plansEnergy certificatesInsurance certificatesCompliance inspections
2
Recognition & classification

Every page is identified and mapped against the expected document list. Missing documents, duplicates and out-of-scope pages are flagged on receipt.

3
Verification

Each rule asks the file a question and answers it directly on the documents, with page, zone and source text attached to the verdict.

4
Arbitration

The team approves, requests a fix, or rejects. No file is approved or rejected automatically.

The result

What changed.

Discrepancies now surface during review rather than at closing. Because the checks are stored, the diligence is evidenced rather than asserted in the deal file.

Before
  • Comparing address, surface area and lot references across nine documents was manual.
  • A surface discrepancy surfaced at closing, when renegotiation was expensive.
  • Nobody could say who had checked what, or when.
After
  • Address, surface and references are compared across the whole file automatically.
  • Discrepancies are flagged with every source zone cited.
  • The verification is stored, so the diligence itself is evidenced.

Anonymised case. Client names are never disclosed without written permission. Figures describe the file volumes and checks in this scenario.

Real Estate All case studies

See it run on your own files.

Bring one real file to a 30-minute demo. Watch the verification run, evidence on screen.